Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks Ariete for this background. I find it incredible that after the difficult maneuvering of Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Britain the US, to check German and Soviet political and territory designs Finland managed to bring the Soviets to an almost stand-still and survive under the pressure-cooker circumstances.
Now i did read that if Tanner was in Mannerheim's position Finland's armies the army would probably have met a bad end. Tanner according to some opinion apparently was a more 'fiery' guy. And with that comes with more different types of decisions on the battlefield. Their thinking was he'd be likely to fight to the death in the forests. I believe Churchill drew up plans as well 'to the death' if Germany succeeded in invading the island but I don't think Finland under Mannerheim's leadership contemplated that idea.
Problem is; Finland lost the Winter War. I have no idea where people get that Finland won, even simple Wikipedia explains this clearly.
Finland did fight well, very well, which was really not a factor in it losing, it is just the USSR had much more resources to pull from, and improved as the war went on.
The Winter War is a classic example of how a much smaller power defeats a much larger power.
The Soviets were not defeated, the Soviets accomplished all of their mission objectives and even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
This is why the USSR lost in Afghanistan, why the U.S. lost in Vietnam, why the Falklands War was a much closer-run war than most post-war assessments acknowledge, and why the Finns were able to fight the Soviets to terms and retain their independence in the spring of 1940.
The USSR and the US lost because they did not commit to the conflict the entirety of their resources, they deemed the objectives not valuable enough, resulting in a loss. If either did commit the entirety of their resources, Afghanistan and Vietnam would have been an easy defeat.
The Soviets were not taking independence from Finland, this was never the objective and if they wanted Finland, they could have taken it during the Winter War and WW2. By the time the Winter War was ending, Finnish defense had been completely destroyed.
From Wiki;
"Finnish concessions and territorial losses exceeded those demanded by the Soviets pre-war."
Thanks Ariete for this background. I find it incredible that after the difficult maneuvering of Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Britain the US, to check German and Soviet political and territory designs Finland managed to bring the Soviets to an almost stand-still and survive under the pressure-cooker circumstances.
Now i did read that if Tanner was in Mannerheim's position Finland's armies the army would probably have met a bad end. Tanner according to some opinion apparently was a more 'fiery' guy. And with that comes with more different types of decisions on the battlefield. Their thinking was he'd be likely to fight to the death in the forests. I believe Churchill drew up plans as well 'to the death' if Germany succeeded in invading the island but I don't think Finland under Mannerheim's leadership contemplated that idea.
The situation was indeed critical in late February 1940. Mannerheim warned that alone the troops cannot hold out for long anymore, and there was no hope of a Swedish and Norwegian official intervention, or even giving access to the Allies. Also the British and the French gave contradictory info on how much troops they would send. And more importantly, Finland critically needed artillery and fighter planes.
Tanner got increasingly jingoist only in the Continuation War, during the Winter War he also saw the realities. I also think Tanner got unnecessary smeared by the Soviets, as for them he was as a social democrat a 'counter-revolutionary' almost as bad as the fascists. Today he is considered a hero and a big statesman.
On 25 February the key ministers debated what we should do. These were the results:
Prime Minister Ryti: peace and cave in to the demands
Foreign Minister Tanner, Advisory Minister Paasikivi: keep on fighting to gain concessions in the negotiations, then negotiate for peace
Minister of Education Hannula: ask immediate help from Britain and France and keep on fighting
Minister of Justice Söderhjelm, Interior Minister von Born, Minister of Defence Niukkanen: we have to keep on fighting nevertheless of the consequences
After much intelligence, reports from the front, cables from the Allies and so on the committee met for the 5th time on 1 March to make their final decision:
Prime Minister Ryti, Foreign Minister Tanner, Advisory Minister Paasikivi, Minister of Justice Söderhjelm, Interior Minister von Born: peace and cave in to the demands
Minister of Education Hannula: ask immediate help from Britain and France and keep on fighting
Minister of Defence Niukkanen: start negotiations with the Soviets, but ask for immediate help from the Allies
This is called 'the most difficult decision in Finnish history'. Mannerheim was quite desperate, and said we could hold on for only 3 more weeks, but other generals said 2-3 months, and by that the British and French would be here. Possibly. Maybe. And what about Sweden? And would the Italians sell more weapons? Spring thaw? More aid from the League of Nations or the US?
So, cave in was the decision the government did. Oh, and if you wonder why the president wasn't involved is that Kyösti Kallio died in a heart-attack on 19 December 1939 and Ryti held both the positions of Prime Minister and a temporary representant as the Head of State.
Interestingly, in the 1st Ryti government included all parliamentary parties except for the semi-fascist IKL, which meant that the government had 186 of 200 seats in parliament, by far the record ever.
Problem is; Finland lost the Winter War. I have no idea where people get that Finland won, even simple Wikipedia explains this clearly.
Finland did fight well, very well, which was really not a factor in it losing, it is just the USSR had much more resources to pull from, and improved as the war went on.
Russians and Stalin did not get what they want, purpose was to take Finland, so on that they did not got victory.
Yep, Finland lost 11 % from its area and around 70000 men of casualties (wounded + dead) but on that trade finns gave to Stalin 410000 russians of casualties (wounded + dead).
These figures means 20% of finnish army and 40 % russians army.
So if finns did not won, I would not say that Stalin won or got victory....
Russians and Stalin did not get what they want, purpose was to take Finland, so on that they did not got victory.
Yep, Finland lost 11 % from its area and around 70000 men of casualties (wounded + dead) but on that trade finns gave to Stalin 410000 russians of casualties (wounded + dead).
These figures means 20% of finnish army and 40 % russians army.
So if finns did not won, I would not say that Stalin won or got victory....
Incorrect, it was never the objective of the Soviets to take Finland. This is just BS to make the Finns feel better about the war, and so they can state "victory" when it fact it was a disastrous defeat. Finland lost more area than was demanded by the Soviets.
The Soviets accomplished the main objective of the war, that is a victory.
The number of casualties do not matter, it is the accomplishment of objectives that count.
The Soviets laid out the terms, not the Finns, and it was the Finns who decided to accept them. If Finland was in such a grand position to state it was a "victory", then there would be no reason to ceded to the demands of the Soviets, the Finns could have simply told them to f*** off. However, the defenses of Finland were destroyed, nothing was in the way of the Soviets marching across Finland. No help was arriving, so Finland agreed to the conditions the Soviets set forth.
Incorrect, it was never the objective of the Soviets to take Finland. This is just BS to make the Finns feel better about the war, and so they can state "victory" when it fact it was a disastrous defeat. Finland lost more area than was demanded by the Soviets.
The Soviets accomplished the main objective of the war, that is a victory.
The number of casualties do not matter, it is the accomplishment of objectives that count.
The Soviets laid out the terms, not the Finns, and it was the Finns who decided to accept them. If Finland was in such a grand position to state it was a "victory", then there would be no reason to ceded to the demands of the Soviets, the Finns could have simply told them to f*** off. However, the defenses of Finland were destroyed, nothing was in the way of the Soviets marching across Finland. No help was arriving, so Finland agreed to the conditions the Soviets set forth.
Yes it was object for soviets to take Finland, do you really think that Stalin just wanted to have some areas and give some areas on that trade?
Look what happened example on Baltic countries and for Stalin it was problem that his plans with Finland did not work as in Baltic countries.
-When Stalin started war, his generals promised that Soviet groups will be at Helsinki on Stalins birthday and Helsinki will be his Birthday present.
-Attack of soviets took position on several places form south to north, check the map.
-Lot of secret documents have come to the daylight from Kremls old records, example Stalin had plans to move finns (Most of) to the Siberia,he gave order to generals make these plans and even ask when gave this order, "How hard it can be?"
-Stalins order for groups was that they need to stop to the border between Sweden and Finland.
-Book "March guide to Finland" was done few years before soviets attack and published 1939 for use of red army (picture: document from that book, translated from russian language)
Tons of other evidences is also available that purpose of Stalin was to take Finland so please dont give that childish russian propaganda that purpose was only friendly visit, reason to take care of safety of Leningrad.
"However, the defenses of Finland were destroyed, nothing was in the way of the Soviets marching across Finland. "
Really?
One example from Raattentie (Northern Finland, picture), Soviet 44. division was totally destroyed by finns (Finns casualties around 500, including wounded + dead) and you are now saying that defense of Finland was destroyed?
Intresting point of view....
Also you are saying that Stalin had not purpose to take Finland and also you are saying that nothing was on the way of soviets when marching across the Finland....This makes no sense. Stalin had purpose or not but you can not have both options.
And finally, back to price of "Victory".
Soviets destroyed with winter war life of around 400000 own citizens + lot of material (=Work+money) and for that they got some land....How crazy action this was: Very !
For russians (And to you) that is big victory but not for me and sure for no one who is thinking with own brains.
Victory of russians was like purchase of lotto-ticket with 10 $ and when winning 1 $ , have a great party because of win.
You know I will add a comment from history. Khrushchev the speaker:
'All of us -and Stalin first and foremost -sensed in our victory a defeat by the Finns. It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay... We had to draw some lessons for the immediate future from what had happened'. In essence here we can see that the victory Krushchev is alluding to is rather not a resounding victory but more like a pyrrhic one.
And thus the ground for managing perception of the Soviet state and destruction of the Reich began.
Re: 'For russians (And to you) that is big victory but not for me and sure for no one who is thinking with own brains.
Victory of russians was like purchase of lotto-ticket with 10 $ and when winning 1 $....
Interesting way of putting it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
